Blue Marble - March 2008

It's still only an idea. But a fine one from MIT's The Media Lab's Smart Cities. A futuristic electric CityCar that can drive itself and, at the press of a button, look for a parking spot behind others like itself, then fold in half and stack like a shopping cart. Reuters reports that a miniature mock-up version has gone on display at a campus museum, and there are plans to build a full-scale model this spring. Wired's blog Autotopia explained the car's premise some time ago:

The GM-backed CityCar prototype is a lightweight electric vehicle that's cheap to make and could be folded and stacked at transit hubs for rental by commuters under a shared-use model. The trick is to rethink the wheel. In the CityCar, a robotic drive system controls electric motors, steering and braking mechanisms, suspension, and digital controls embedded in each wheel  all integrated into plug-and-play sealed units that can be snapped on and off Besides its stackability, its omnidirectional wheel configuration enables a turning radius of zero, turning U-turns into O-turns Other features: push-button start, handlebars where the steering wheel would be, and a body made of Kevlar, carbon fiber, or some other lightweight composite.

Imagine if parking, drive time, congestion, navigation, and your fellow driver was no longer an issue. Imagine what that might do to emotional health, personal time & energy budgets, neighborly love, and the big CO2 footprint in the sky. Imagine if we didn't need to compete for space but could happily piggyback on each other. Okay, call me an idealist but there are days when the future looks good enough for hope... You'll have to navigate on your own through the Smart Cities pages to find the City Car. But it's a really fun ride.

Voluntary environmental programs among businesses don't work. This according to a new study from George Mason University of more than 30,000 firms. Some of those firms were participants in the Environmental Protection Agency's VEPs (Voluntary Environmental Programs), some weren't. Participants received $69 million from the EPA last year (1.6 percent of the agency's budget). Yet nonparticipating companies performed 7.7 percent better than participants in meeting environmental goals.

Why? Well, self-monitored companies performed worst of all (nonparticipators outperformed them by 24 percent). The absence of third-party oversight invites 'free ridership,' says Nicole Darnall, lead author. "Companies are taking part in these programs and receive credit for doing so, but some aren't really adhering to the goals. Nonparticipating companies may have stronger goals [and] a higher performance." The study is published in Policy Studies Journal.

On Friday, 19 union local presidents representing more than 10,000 EPA employees submitted a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson accusing him of "abuses of our good nature and trust." The complaint cited the California greenhouse gas waiver decision and several other issues, including the oversight of mercury emissions from power plants. It expanded upon a protest of the waiver decision submitted by a smaller group of EPA staffers in January.

That same Friday I happened to attend a forum at UC Davis on California's greenhouse gas regulation efforts. Ken Davis, the point man on global warming lawsuits for the AG's office, mentioned that the EPA had earlier that day submitted a 40-page declaration expanding upon its reasoning for denying the waiver. The EPA was calling the declaration its "final rule," which, he speculated, was an effort to reset the clock on the AG's appeal of the decision. He considered the move a shameless delaying tactic.

Clearly, we haven't heard the last of the global warming fight between California and the EPA. Johnson is increasingly isolated: public opinion, state legislatures, and, of course, the world at large are moving in the opposite direction. Expect an increasing amount of high profile dissent from within the EPA as the political season unfolds--especially if it looks more likely that a Democrat will retake the White House.

Cows crap a lot. As of today, BioEnergy Solutions of California's Central Valley is using a vat of liquid cow poo the size of five football fields and 33 feet deep to produce natural gas. Planet Ark reports that David Albers, lifelong dairyman, aims to provide natural gas to power 1,200 homes a day through his Vintage Dairy Biogas Project. Albers is a partner in the 5,000-head Vintage Dairy and president of BioEnergy Solutions, which funded and built the facility at a cost of millions of dollars. The natural gas he's collecting is now plugged into California's grid via the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, part of an agreement to deliver up to three billion cubic feet of renewable natural gas a year—enough to meet the electricity needs of approximately 50,000 PG&E residential customers.

Good job. Even better: human poo power. Shiteloads of that to go around.

At last, the tobacco company Philip Morris has ended its program supporting research at dozens of U.S. universities after the University of California decided to monitor such support in its 10-campus system. The Philip Morris External Research Program funded 470 research proposals at about 60 U.S. medical schools for the last 8 years, reports Science. Critics charged the program was no different from earlier, discredited Philip Morris programs, likewise designed to confuse the public about the dangers of smoking . There might be a spark left in the ashtray though. Look for future tobacco- industry funded studies aimed at "reducing the harm of smoking." —Like quitting?

What happens to the Democratic primary when you plug it into the Prisoner's Dilemma? You know, that classic game theory tool (born from mathematics and economics and now used across many disciplines to analyze optimal behavior strategies when the outcome is uncertain and is dependent on the choices of others). Well, you might think superdelegates are good. You might think they're bad. But according to polysciblogger Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics the outcome is essentially anarchy:

The core problem is that the Democrats have empowered the super delegates to break a tie, but they have not empowered anybody to manage the super delegates. There are no rules that demand the super delegates convene and discuss with one another. There is nobody in charge of regulating the debate. There is nothing to punish the super delegates who are small-minded, nothing to reward the big-minded. There are no time restrictions that require them to make up their minds prior to the convention. They are wholly unfettered. Thus, the super delegates have a great deal in common with a mob. They're a mob of experienced, qualified politicos who care about the party. If the Democratic Party were to be put at the mercy of a mob—this is the mob you'd want. But it is a mob nonetheless. This is why large institutions—like the House and the Senate—have reams of rules governing member behavior. If the members of those institutions are to do their jobs ably, they need a framework for interaction. Otherwise, their talents may be squandered amidst the chaos.

Squandered talents. Amidst the chaos. Sounds like Normal to me Thanks to Jake Young blogging at Pure Pedantry for pointing the way on this.

Maybe not who your conscious mind prefers. Want to find out? Take the 10-minute online Project Implicit test designed by psycholowonks at the U of Washington, the U of Virginia and Harvard. The test is fun, made me laugh, and will crack that oh-so-dark door to your secret feelings about the main candidates. Thanks to Peter Aldhous at Short Sharp Science for the heads-up on this, and for his results revealing a secret crush on Hillary. He's not alone, the test shows that many rate Clinton higher on the implicit test than their conscious attitudes speak—for both men and women.

As for my unconscious, it's, well, so unconscious and insists on paralleling my conscious, which rates Clinton high anyway... The really fun part, the one we'll surely never know, is: Who would the candidates themselves secretly prefer?

China is considering scrapping its one-child policy because of worries about an ageing population and how much of a social net the country can afford without the traditional reliance on large families to care for the aged. "We want incrementally to have this [one-child policy] change," said Vice Minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission Zhao Baige. Planet Ark reports that teams studying the issue would have to consider the strain of China's huge population on its scarce resources.

Okay, it doesn't take a lot of number crunching to recognize that no amount of young workers "supporting" the elderly will make up for droughts, floods, deforestation, dustbowls-for-croplands, climate change, sea-level rise, extinctions, and economic meltdown that will follow in the wake of more people on our little world. This goes for all nations toying with or employing pronatalist policies: US, France, Russia, Australia, Canada, Japan, and growing